Currently, libnet's LICENSE field is only Artistic (non-free), but libnet's actual license states it is distributable under the same terms as Perl, which is || ( Artistic GPL-2 )
This also applies to many other Perl modules, including: dev-perl/XML-LibXML-1.66-r1 dev-perl/MP3-Info-1.23 dev-perl/List-MoreUtils-0.21 perl-core/libnet-1.22 dev-perl/MIME-tools-5.427 dev-perl/XML-SAX-0.16 dev-perl/IO-String-1.08 dev-perl/Unicode-String-2.09 dev-perl/HTML-Tagset-3.10 dev-perl/Authen-SASL-2.12 dev-perl/Locale-gettext-1.05-r1 dev-perl/XML-SimpleObject-0.53 dev-perl/XML-Parser-2.36 dev-perl/IO-stringy-2.110 dev-perl/perl-tk-804.028-r2 dev-perl/MailTools-1.77 Also, it is GPL-1 or newer, not GPL-2 or newer...
License hidden in .pm file for these: dev-perl/XML-NamespaceSupport-1.09 dev-perl/IO-Multiplex-1.09
*** Bug 302562 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please fix this, it stops a number of packages from now being emerged.
So how do we express: GPL, "either version 1, or (at your option) any later version"? || ( GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3 ). Do I have to check every LICENSE after >GPL-3 is published?
Just a quick note, artistic is not non-free it's a perfect free software license, just gpl-incompatible. For the gplvX or above: we don't have such a feature, adding || (GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3) is the best we can do for now. We had the discussion on -dev, but it's probably quite non-trivial, so for now we should go with the ||-solution.
(In reply to comment #6) > For the gplvX or above: we don't have such a feature, adding || (GPL-1 GPL-2 > GPL-3) is the best we can do for now. We had the discussion on -dev, but it's > probably quite non-trivial, so for now we should go with the ||-solution. If we only could use license groups in LICENSE... So I use the ||-solution and leave a comment in the ebuilds. Thanks
Artistic *is* non-Free, since it restricts commercial redistribution. I seem to recall seeing a 'GPL-2-or-later' license at one point, though it appears to be gone now. Perhaps adding a 'GPL-1-or-later' license file would make sense and using '|| ( GPL-1 GPL-1-or-later )'?
Artistic is non-Free: see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense
As to the GPL issue, I think adding GPL-x-or-later alternatives would be better to make it clear that the license is a particular version of the GPL with the or later clause intact; it is a different license to the one used by e.g. Linux where the later clause has been removed. The main issue is that most ebuilds will probably need to switch to the -or-later version to truly reflect the license of the package.
That with artistic being non-free is a valuable info - we have it in OSI-approved, but it seems that's wrong. On the osi-page, only artistic-2.0 is listed. I'll remove it from the set. We should probably re-check the OSI-approved list in license_groups.
FWIW, my overlay (luke-jr) contains a license group LUKEDASHJR with licenses I have personally reviewed and verified to be free. Notably, it does NOT include a certain non-free font license that both OSI and FSF appear to tolerate.
*** Bug 302710 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Also dev-perl/HTML-Tree (In reply to comment #11) > That with artistic being non-free is a valuable info - we have it in > OSI-approved, but it seems that's wrong. On the osi-page, only artistic-2.0 is > listed. I'll remove it from the set. We should probably re-check the > OSI-approved list in license_groups. > No, Artistic is OSI-approved. See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
(In reply to comment #14) > No, Artistic is OSI-approved. See > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php Re-added. OSI-APPROVED is an objective criterion, therefore we need not decide ourselves if the license is free or not.
(In reply to comment #12) > FWIW, my overlay (luke-jr) contains a license group LUKEDASHJR with licenses I > have personally reviewed and verified to be free. Notably, it does NOT include > a certain non-free font license that both OSI and FSF appear to tolerate. Could you file a bug if your group contains licenses that we should add to (or remove from) our groups?
(In reply to comment #1) > perl-core/libnet-1.22 libnetFAQ.pod (<http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/libnet-1.22/Net/libnetFAQ.pod>) " is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the Artistic License". It is also part of dev-lang/perl.
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #12) > > FWIW, my overlay (luke-jr) contains a license group LUKEDASHJR with licenses I > > have personally reviewed and verified to be free. Notably, it does NOT include > > a certain non-free font license that both OSI and FSF appear to tolerate. > > Could you file a bug if your group contains licenses that we should add to (or > remove from) our groups? AFAIK, the official Gentoo license groups are objective criterion like OSI and FSF approved... My group is strictly licenses that I have read and subjectively interpret as free licenses. Gentoo is welcome to mirror it, but it really reflects nothing other than my personal judgement. (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #1) > > perl-core/libnet-1.22 > > libnetFAQ.pod (<http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/libnet-1.22/Net/libnetFAQ.pod>) " > is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the > Artistic License". It is also part of dev-lang/perl. README ( http://search.cpan.org/src/GBARR/libnet-1.22/README ) trumps FAQ? > COPYRIGHT > > (C) 1996-2007 Graham Barr. All rights reserved. > > This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > it under the same terms as Perl itself.
> (In reply to comment #17) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > perl-core/libnet-1.22 > > > > libnetFAQ.pod (<http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/libnet-1.22/Net/libnetFAQ.pod>) " > > is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the > > Artistic License". It is also part of dev-lang/perl. > > README ( http://search.cpan.org/src/GBARR/libnet-1.22/README ) trumps FAQ? > > COPYRIGHT > > > > (C) 1996-2007 Graham Barr. All rights reserved. > > > > This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > it under the same terms as Perl itself. Probably through an oversight. It should be fixed upstream.
I choose || ( Artistic GPL-2) for dev-perl/libvorbis-perl: <http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/FOOF/libvorbis-perl-0.05/debian/copyright>: | This library is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify | it under the same terms as Perl itself, either the GPLv2 or the | Artistic License.
+ 03 Feb 2010; Hanno Boeck <hanno@gentoo.org> Log-Agent-0.307.ebuild: + Remove LICENSE so it takes the correct from perl-module.eclass. Why? It only mentions the Artistic license. + 03 Feb 2010; Hanno Boeck <hanno@gentoo.org> libnet-1.22.ebuild: + Remove wrong LICENSE so it takes the one from perl-module.eclass. The license in comment 17 doesn't matter? + 03 Feb 2010; Hanno Boeck <hanno@gentoo.org> perl-tk-804.028-r2.ebuild, + perl-tk-804.028-r3.ebuild: + Remove LICENSE so it takes the correct from perl-module.eclass. perl-tk bundles a lot of tk stuff with different licenses. + 03 Feb 2010; Hanno Boeck <hanno@gentoo.org> AtExit-2.01.ebuild: + Remove LICENSE so it takes the correct from perl-module.eclass. | COPY/REUSE POLICY | ================= | Copyright (C) 1996 Andrew Langmead. All rights reserved. | | AtExit is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it | under the terms of the Artistic License distributed with Perl version | 5.000 or (at your option) any later version. Please refer to the | Artistic License that came with your Perl distribution for more | details.
Ok, libnet and AtExit seem to have ambigious licenses, trying to clear that up with upstream. I was just grepping for the "perl itself"-clause and was happy when I found it, probably too fast. For tk, it's BSD-licensed, which "should" be compatible with all GPL1/2/3/Artistic, so this should be ok (?). For Log-Agent, I probably did a mistake. Gimme a day or so to get on some upstreams.
Created attachment 218279 [details] Artistic only packages (In reply to comment #22) > I was just grepping for the "perl itself"-clause and was happy > when I found it, probably too fast. Attached is a list of dev-perl packages which only list the Artistic license. (It does not list packages where a later version has a different license.) I think we should only close this bug after we reviewed all of them. > For tk, it's BSD-licensed, which "should" be compatible with all > GPL1/2/3/Artistic, so this should be ok (?). http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/SREZIC/Tk-804.028/pTk/license.terms http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/SREZIC/Tk-804.028/pTk/Tix.license http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/SREZIC/Tk-804.028/pTk/license.html_lib Latest version (<http://search.cpan.org/~srezic/Tk-804.028_502/>) has "license: unrestricted" in META.yml which translates in CPAN to: "The distribution is licensed under a license that is not approved by www.opensource.org but that allows distribution without restrictions"
Sorry again, I didn't want to close this bug, seems I'm a bit confused at the moment...
dev-perl/Mail-Sender: | the same terms as Perl itself with only one exception, you are not allowed | to use the module for SPAM.
(In reply to comment #25) > dev-perl/Mail-Sender: > | the same terms as Perl itself with only one exception, you are not allowed > | to use the module for SPAM. Stupid clause, it makes the package non-free. "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her."
dev-perl/X11-Protocol: "same terms as Perl itself" except for file Keysyms.pm which is under the MIT/X11 license. So "|| ( Artistic GPL-1 GPL-2 GPL-3 ) MIT" should be appropriate.
(In reply to comment #25) > dev-perl/Mail-Sender: > | the same terms as Perl itself with only one exception, you are not allowed > | to use the module for SPAM. Debian folks are sorting things out with upstream: <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568652>
http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/DPARIS/Crypt-Blowfish-2.11a/COPYRIGHT Do I have to add a new license/ for dev-perl/Crypt-Blowfish?
(In reply to comment #29) > http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/DPARIS/Crypt-Blowfish-2.11a/COPYRIGHT > Do I have to add a new license/ for dev-perl/Crypt-Blowfish? This is basically identical with licenses/DES, except for the copyright holder being different. So I would just use DES for it. (We could convert it into a template, i.e. replace any names by a general <copyright holder>).
For Mail-Sender, upstream refused to change his licensing terms and debian moved it into nonfree. I've added a Mail-Sender license file and set it in the ebuild.
(In reply to comment #31) > For Mail-Sender, upstream refused to change his licensing terms and debian > moved it into nonfree. I've added a Mail-Sender license file and set it in the > ebuild. Which license group should we put it in?
Looks like @EULA (restricts usage) and @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE (distribution is unrestricted) to me...
The license doesn't require explicit acceptance, so I'm not sure that @EULA is right.
To have it in @EULA looks wrong to me. It also can't be in @FREE or any subgroup of it.
Arguably, no EULAs are legally valid. I see no reason Mail::Sender's would be any different from other EULAs.
(In reply to comment #36) > Arguably, no EULAs are legally valid. I see no reason Mail::Sender's would be > any different from other EULAs. @EULA in Gentoo has been licenses that require explicit approval. I'm not going to debate if the licenses themselves are valid. The Mail::Sender license is definitely open-source, but not libre or DFSG-free. I think it SHOULD be in the @FREE groups.
(In reply to comment #37) > The Mail::Sender license is definitely open-source, but not libre or DFSG-free. > I think it SHOULD be in the @FREE groups. It fulfills neither the Free Software Definition (see comment #26) nor the Open Source Definition at <http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd> because of "6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". Yes, it _is_ stupid in the concrete case, but do you really want to open this can of worms and start adding exceptions?
NOTE: if an ebuild inherits perl-module.eclass and does not specify LICENSE, it now defaults to || ( Artistic GPL-1+ ) which is the Perl license. (In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #0) > Currently, libnet's LICENSE field is only Artistic (non-free), but libnet's > actual license states it is distributable under the same terms as Perl, > which is || ( Artistic GPL-2 ) Long fixed. (In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #1) > This also applies to many other Perl modules, including: > > dev-perl/XML-LibXML-1.66-r1 Long fixed. > dev-perl/MP3-Info-1.23 Long fixed. > dev-perl/List-MoreUtils-0.21 Long fixed. > perl-core/libnet-1.22 Long fixed. > dev-perl/MIME-tools-5.427 Long fixed. > dev-perl/XML-SAX-0.16 Long fixed. > dev-perl/IO-String-1.08 Long fixed. > dev-perl/Unicode-String-2.09 Long fixed. > dev-perl/HTML-Tagset-3.10 Long fixed. > dev-perl/Authen-SASL-2.12 Long fixed. > dev-perl/Locale-gettext-1.05-r1 Long fixed. > dev-perl/XML-SimpleObject-0.53 Long fixed. > dev-perl/XML-Parser-2.36 Long fixed. > dev-perl/IO-stringy-2.110 Long fixed. > dev-perl/perl-tk-804.028-r2 Incorrect, special terms apply. > dev-perl/MailTools-1.77 Long fixed. (In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #2) > License hidden in .pm file for these: > > dev-perl/XML-NamespaceSupport-1.09 Long fixed. > dev-perl/IO-Multiplex-1.09 Long fixed. (In reply to William Throwe from comment #14) > Also > dev-perl/HTML-Tree Long fixed. Everything up to comment #14 is handled. :/
(In reply to Torsten Veller (RETIRED) from comment #19) > > (In reply to comment #17) > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > perl-core/libnet-1.22 > > > > > > libnetFAQ.pod (<http://search.cpan.org/~gbarr/libnet-1.22/Net/libnetFAQ.pod>) " > > > is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the > > > Artistic License". It is also part of dev-lang/perl. > > > > README ( http://search.cpan.org/src/GBARR/libnet-1.22/README ) trumps FAQ? > > > COPYRIGHT > > > > > > (C) 1996-2007 Graham Barr. All rights reserved. > > > > > > This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > > it under the same terms as Perl itself. > > Probably through an oversight. It should be fixed upstream. libnet clearly states now "license = perl5", and this is also reflected in Gentoo. Everything up to and including comment #19 handled.
(In reply to Torsten Veller (RETIRED) from comment #21) > + 03 Feb 2010; Hanno Boeck <hanno@gentoo.org> Log-Agent-0.307.ebuild: > + Remove LICENSE so it takes the correct from perl-module.eclass. > > Why? It only mentions the Artistic license. Log-Agent is now only Artistic-2 (correct in the ebuild).
(In reply to Torsten Veller (RETIRED) from comment #21) > > + 03 Feb 2010; Hanno Boeck <hanno@gentoo.org> perl-tk-804.028-r2.ebuild, > + perl-tk-804.028-r3.ebuild: > + Remove LICENSE so it takes the correct from perl-module.eclass. > > perl-tk bundles a lot of tk stuff with different licenses. Added tcltk license for Tk. Needs also the license for bundled Tix and the bundled Sun HTML library (both are in the tarball, need to be identified): ./pTk/Tix.license ./pTk/license.html_lib TODO > + 03 Feb 2010; Hanno Boeck <hanno@gentoo.org> AtExit-2.01.ebuild: > + Remove LICENSE so it takes the correct from perl-module.eclass. Unfortunately that's wrong, it's "Artistic-1 or any later version" (clarified in 2.03). Fixed.
(In reply to Torsten Veller (RETIRED) from comment #23) > > Attached is a list of dev-perl packages which only list the Artistic license. > (It does not list packages where a later version has a different license.) > > I think we should only close this bug after we reviewed all of them. > Astro-SunTime-0.01: Artistic - gone Bio-Das-1.14: Artistic - several POD state "perl" -> fixed Cache-Simple-TimedExpiry-0.27: Artistic - license is "perl", already fixed Config-Crontab-1.20: Artistic Config-Crontab-1.30: Artistic - Ebuild (1.41) says "perl" but license is Artistic. Fixed. Crypt-Cracklib-1.1: Artistic Crypt-Cracklib-1.2: Artistic Crypt-Cracklib-1.4-r1: Artistic - Ebuild (1.7) says Artistic but license is perl. Fixed. Crypt-OpenPGP-1.03: Artistic Crypt-OpenPGP-1.04: Artistic - Ebuild (1.7) says Artistic, but license is perl. Fixed. DBD-SQLite2-0.33: Artistic - License is perl. Already fixed. Data-Hierarchy-0.34: Artistic - Readme says perl. Already fixed. Data-Random-0.05: Artistic - License (0.12) is perl. Already fixed.
(In reply to Torsten Veller (RETIRED) from comment #23) > Created attachment 218279 [details] > Artistic only packages > > (In reply to comment #22) > > I was just grepping for the "perl itself"-clause and was happy > > when I found it, probably too fast. > > Attached is a list of dev-perl packages which only list the Artistic license. > (It does not list packages where a later version has a different license.) > > I think we should only close this bug after we reviewed all of them. > Eidetic-2.003003: Artistic - gone Email-Abstract-2.13.2: Artistic Email-Abstract-3.001: Artistic - license is perl, already fixed Email-FolderType-0.813: Artistic - license is perl, already fixed Encode-compat-0.07: Artistic - license is ambiguous, mentions "same as perl", links to Artistic ebuild says perl, changing to Artistic as more restrictive option Festival-Client-Async-0.0303: Artistic - license is perl, already fixed File-DirWalk-0.3: Artistic - license is perl (0.4, 0.5), already fixed File-NFSLock-1.20: Artistic - license is perl, already fixed File-Path-Expand-1.02: Artistic - license is perl, already fixed File-ReadBackwards-1.04: Artistic - license is perl, already fixed
(In reply to Torsten Veller (RETIRED) from comment #23) > > Attached is a list of dev-perl packages which only list the Artistic license. > (It does not list packages where a later version has a different license.) > > I think we should only close this bug after we reviewed all of them. > File-Slurp-9999.13: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed File-Tempdir-0.02: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed File-chdir-0.1002: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed Finance-YahooQuote-0.22: Artistic * License is GPL-2+, already fixed Font-TTF-0.45: Artistic * License is Artistic-2, already fixed HTML-Element-Extended-1.16: Artistic HTML-Element-Extended-1.17: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed HTML-FillInForm-2.00: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed HTML-HTMLDoc-0.10: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed HTML-LinkExtractor-0.13: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed HTML-Object-2.15-r1: Artistic HTML-Object-2.29: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed HTML-TokeParser-Simple-3.15: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed IO-Digest-0.10: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed IO-Tee-0.64: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed IP-Country-2.23: Artistic IP-Country-2.27: Artistic * gone from tree
(In reply to Torsten Veller (RETIRED) from comment #23) > > Attached is a list of dev-perl packages which only list the Artistic license. > (It does not list packages where a later version has a different license.) > > I think we should only close this bug after we reviewed all of them. > Lingua-EN-Numbers-Ordinate-1.02: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed Lingua-PT-Stemmer-0.01: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed Lingua-Preferred-0.2.4: Artistic * License is || ( Artistic GPL-2+ ), already fixed Lingua-Stem-Fr-0.02: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed Lingua-Stem-It-0.02: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed Lingua-Stem-Ru-0.01: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed Lingua-Stem-Snowball-Da-1.01-r1: Artistic * License is GPL-2, already fixed LockFile-Simple-0.2.5-r1: Artistic * License is || ( Artistic GPL-2+ ), already fixed MD5-2.03: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed MLDBM-2.01: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed MP3-Tag-1.12: Artistic * Artistic is correct Mail-ListDetector-1.02: Artistic * License is Perl, already fixed
